Why Obama’s Iran deal is a path to war

Photo: ZumaPress

The Obama administration and its supporters insist that, although the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program now taking shape may not be perfect, the only alternative is war with Iran. A failure of the nuclear talks, they also contend, would sacrifice important temporary agreements that now restrict Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Both arguments are false. Worse, the nuclear deal that the administration is pursuing may make war with Iran more likely.

The world would be safer if the nuclear talks with Iran were stopped now.

The agreement being negotiated reportedly would last only 10 years and would leave Iran able to build multiple nuclear bombs in about three months. Administration leaks describe a deal that lets Iran keep on enriching uranium with as many as 6,500 centrifuges and continuing to work on the Arak heavy-water reactor that will be a source of plutonium.

Such an agreement would destabilize the Middle East — launching a regional nuclear-arms race as Iran’s Muslim rivals seek to match its capabilities, and perhaps prompting an Israeli airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Nor have the talks significantly reduced Iran’s nuclear program. Despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary, Iran has enriched uranium at the same rate since the nuclear talks began early last year and increased its stockpile of enriched uranium.

STOPPING THE TALKS MIGHT ACTUALLY LOWER REGIONAL TENSIONS BY EASING THE FEARS OF ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER STATES THAT A WEAK, SHORT-LIVED NUCLEAR AGREEMENT IS COMING SOON.

It would take Iran about three months to produce fuel for its first nuclear weapon by refining its low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade material. At the end of 2013, it had on hand enough low-grade uranium for at least seven bombs; by the end of 2014, enough for at least eight.

In answer to criticism that a potential nuclear deal won’t be strong enough, Obama officials have claimed it will be subject to stringent inspections by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

This argument is hard to take seriously: Iran has never fully cooperated with the IAEA. During the talks, it has specifically refused to cooperate with IAEA inspectors — one of its several violations of the interim agreement that set up the talks.

The alternative to a deeply flawed nuclear deal is not war, it is continued stalemate — more of the slow development of the Iranian nuclear program that has persisted despite 13 months of nuclear talks.

Stopping the talks might actually lower regional tensions by easing the fears of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other states that a weak, short-lived nuclear agreement is coming soon — one that will end sanctions on Tehran and all restrictions on its future nuclear activities.

Congress should not be fooled by the Obama team’s false claim that it’s either their way on the Iranian nuclear program or war with Iran.

The truth is that the flawed agreement being negotiated will make a war more likely and kicks hard-to-solve elements of Iran’s nuclear program down the road for a future president to deal with.

Far better to halt the nuclear talks and return to the pre-2012 Western approach that required Iran to end uranium enrichment, disable its centrifuges, send its enriched-uranium stockpile out of the country and disassemble the Arak reactor.

Charles Krauthammer had it right last week on Fox News: The Iranian nuclear talks are “simply catastrophic.” The real catastrophe will be if this foolish agreement sparks a regional war in the Middle East.

Fred Fleitz is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy and a former CIA analyst.